Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the output is 'normalized' and restricts venue to the listed values, adding context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action. Every part serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what 'normalized' means and what the function returns. It does not cover error cases or the exact return structure, leaving the tool under-specified for someone unfamiliar with the domain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explicitly defines venue as 'kalshi' or 'polymarket', giving it meaning beyond the raw string type. However, market_id is not described, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('one normalized market'), with 'one' distinguishing it from the sibling tools list_markets and matching_markets. It also specifies the venue scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when a specific market_id is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The venue constraint provides some context, but no direct guidance on selection among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.